Commas with because?

Context raising its head again, methinks.

I am not going home, because if I do I will get shot.

I am not going home because I will get shot but because I will get fed.

ETA

Hmmm. Maybe I should have stepped away from this one - Bufty ducks behind the ballustrade.

I've been writing and teaching for many years, and I've never heard there was a rule of "no comma before the word 'because.' It's certainly necessary to resolve ambiguities. For example,"I didn't go to my mother's because I wanted to clean the house" needs a comma to clarify my meaning. Without the comma, it means I went to my mother's but never intended to end up cleaning her house for her. With a comma in front of "because," it means I didn't go to my mother's because I wanted to clean my house, instead.
I also think there are situations where a comma is a rhythym/style/breath choice, and I don't know anything that prohibits using it before "because" where appropriate.

Back in the day I was taught that there must be a comma before "because", if the "because" started an independent clause.

Snick, doesn't "because" always introduce an independent clause? Its function is to make an independent clause into a dependent one. Were you taught that a comma is mandatory unless "because" started the sentence?

Ketzel said:

Snick, doesn't "because" always introduce an independent clause?

Click to expand...

No, although someo people might say that the clauses that it starts are all independent, because some words were dropped. I am trying to think of a good example, but I can't right now.

Its function is to make an independent clause into a dependent one.

Click to expand...

That's a new one. I do not believe that "because" maks an independent clause into a dependent clause, unless one drops the subject or the verb.

Were you taught that a comma is mandatory unless "because" started the sentence?

Click to expand...

That is entirely possible.

Not to derail the OP's thread, just to clarify:a dependent clause can have a subject-verb structure. Thus:
I didn't go to my mother's. This is a complete sentence.

It was raining. Also a complete sentence.

However, when you connect them with "because," you are turning the second sentence into a dependant clause of the first sentence. No need to drop the subject or the verb.

I didn't go to my mother's house because it was raining.

The only time a comma should be used before "because" is when the sentence is long, or complicated, and the meaning is in doubt without the comma. Meaning matters, and sometimes only a comma can give a sentence the proper meaning.

But a comma before "because" usually means you've written a poorly constructed sentence, or one sentence when two would work better.

I'm in the no-comma camp and treat subordinator 'because' (or adverbial clauses) very much like 'that': restrictive (tied tightly to the main clause).

If you add a comma to 'because', then you're treating the information as nonessential when mostly it seems very much dependent on the main clause for understanding:

She went home BECAUSE she was unhappy.
They walked through the woods BECAUSE the road was blocked.

Similar to restrictive subordinator that:

This is the trouble that we're facing lately.

I'm sure there's something in Chicago Manual on punctuating subordinators.... Edit: just noticed that you're from Germany, Saraz... what market are you aiming for? CMOS (style guide) might not be any good to you. Any good English reference book will help you out.

But that's just my opinion.

If you're really interesting in this little topic, or searching for grammar-related procrastination reading material, perhaps this article on Language Log "Can you have a comma before because?" might interest you--an excerpt of it:

I got a message from a former teacher who said her friend had sent her my article about Strunk and White and it had stimulated her to ask me the following question:

• For 31 years, this is the rule I taught to all of my elementary school students: do not put a comma before "because." Since I noticed that you did so at least twice in your article, I am wondering if I taught the students incorrectly (I hope not) or rather if Scots follow another rule (I hope so). I'd really like to know.

Oh, dear. The problem was not how to answer the question; the problem was how to do so kindly and gently. I did not do well enough.
. . .

Click to expand...

The article takes up three or four pages, but seems to have some interesting info/opinion in it. Maybe.

A comma is not needed before because, even if what follows, if you remove "because" is an independent clause.

I poured the beer slowly because if not my glass would be half foam.

"If not my glass would be half foam" is a dependent clause.

I poured the beer slowly because I didn't want a glass half full of foam.

"I didn't want a glass half full of foam" is an independent clause.

A comma is not necessary in either one because "because" makes the whole independent clause dependent. "Because" is part of the clause, not just a connector like "and" or "or."

The clause is "Because I didn't want a glass half full of foam," and not, "I didn't want a glass half full of foam." This makes the clause dependent, thus no comma is necessary, but for clairity or flow, one could be added without rousing the feathers of grammarians.

The clauses could be reversed, then you need a comma.

Because I didn't want a glass half full of foam, I poured the beer slowly.